[aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?
connor.behan at gmail.com
Sat Feb 13 20:12:00 UTC 2016
On 13/02/16 02:49 PM, P. A. López-Valencia wrote:
> El 13/02/2016 a las 5:09 a. m., William Di Luigi escribió:
>> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Ralf Mardorf
>> <ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net> wrote:
>>> and at least two other maintainers felt harassed
>>> by this maintainer
>> Again, it's important to note that these other maintainers gave no
>> proof of harassment yet. We just learnt that Det is Finnish and shared
>> "immature things" on Google+ (as if that could have the slightest
>> weight in an harassment accusation).
> WE, Dave Blair and I, BOTH SAID THE HARASSMENT WAS DONE *PRIVATELY*, yet
> you are asking for public proof? Your sharpness is.... Sheesh!
He didn't say that it would be easy for you to establish public proof
(that would indeed warrant a "sheesh"). He said that no matter how hard
it is to prove harassment, the onus for doing so is on the victim. Which
it should be. I'm sure all people in this discussion agree that the
bullying you describe is completely unacceptable, but we simply cannot
be banning users based on scenarios that are simply one person's word
> I made a description of character; the individual in question is a
> sociopath. By definition a liar that can be anything and make believe
> anything to anyone, to many at the same time.
> You are not productive nor giving anything new to the discussion. Your
> have attempted to derail the conversation in an attempt to play the
> "girl, you asked to be raped" first and then the "you casnt speaks the
> Engrish" second, throws a dark light on whatever your real intentions
> are; no matter how you dress them.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the aur-general